Language like this suggests your primary concern is punishing tech bros for having too much money.
I’m happy to have a conversation about the excesses to tech industry funding rounds and salaries. I’d probably mostly agree with you.
The solution is not to evaporate their bank accounts for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of their work and are almost entirely due to the economic instability continuing to play out since the pandemic started.
For a start, there’d be nothing moral about it whatsoever, and more importantly, it would affect countless low-income people, just as much or more than rich tech bros.
> Language like this suggests your primary concern is punishing tech bros for having too much money
It really isn't.
My hypothesis is that when things go bad, the poorer in society get thrown under the bus, yet the weathier get bailed out. What's happened in the last few days appears to be yet another data point in support of that hypothesis.
> The solution is not to evaporate their bank accounts for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of their work and are almost entirely due to the economic instability continuing to play out since the pandemic started.
Millions lost their homes during the 2007/08 financial crisis[0][1], did that have anything to do with merit, or was it (to use your phrase) "almost entirely due to the economic instability" caused by excesses on Wall Street?
> My hypothesis is that when things go bad, the poorer in society get thrown under the bus, yet the weathier get bailed out
I share the sense of injustice when that happens, and I know it has been the case plenty of times in the past and will be again in the future, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening here.
This action from the government is about shoring up the system to prevent a widespread collapse, which would hurt poor people and cost taxpayers much more than any direct costs relating to this action. It’s also worth considering that a huge driver of the economic turmoil that’s playing out now has been the government spending to support people - including/especially low-income people - through the pandemic, so it’s really not a case of poor people being thrown under a bus; it’s just a case of keeping the whole system functioning through very unstable and challenging times for everyone.
> Millions lost their homes during the 2007/08 financial crisis[0][1], did that have anything to do with merit, or was it (to use your phrase) "almost entirely due to the economic instability" caused by excesses on Wall Street?
There was plenty that was wrong about the way the 07/08 crisis was handled but it was a very different situation. I think it was terrible that people lost their homes, as well as jobs and businesses, through no fault of their own. It was mostly due to government regulations and bank lending practices that enabled people to buy houses they couldn’t afford. It was very wrong that the bank execs who oversaw it kept their jobs and wealth.
The SVB scenario is nothing like this. Depositors have not caused an economic crisis that will hurt poor people. SVB execs caused it and regulators contributed. And so SVB execs are losing everything and regulators are fixing it at little/no cost to taxpayers, but to the benefit of everyone who will keep their job, many of whom are low-income workers.
Language like this suggests your primary concern is punishing tech bros for having too much money.
I’m happy to have a conversation about the excesses to tech industry funding rounds and salaries. I’d probably mostly agree with you.
The solution is not to evaporate their bank accounts for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of their work and are almost entirely due to the economic instability continuing to play out since the pandemic started.
For a start, there’d be nothing moral about it whatsoever, and more importantly, it would affect countless low-income people, just as much or more than rich tech bros.